27.8% of talks are from end users. https://kccna18.sched.com/ -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

It could also help if there was an option for a session with a sponsorship. We were told no when asked and after we missed the submission deadline. It wasn’t clear if there are other options for us

What percentage of end user talks were accepted?

Please remember that "vendors" are also in many cases the primary contributors to CNCF projects. I talked to one of the co-chairs. There are vastly more talks submitted by project contributors than

I think it's important that tactical measures (e.g., double-blind, vendor talk limits, etc.) should be in the service of a general goal. IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the

I recognize that it's not always that cut-and-dried, BTW; I've been on the selection team for several conferences and sometimes it's just a matter of "there were 10 slots and you ranked #11". But not

"Quinton Hoole" <quinton.hoole@...> wrote: > I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection > notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too > much

+1

+1

Thanks for the insightful and thought-provoking blog post Bryan. I missed the call yesterday, but co-incidentally had been noodling with similar thoughts recently, as, anecdotally, I’m also not

I was a reviewer for both China and North America this year, and a double-blind academia reviewer earlier in life. I sent some feedback to the program committee which mostly echoed Brian's blog

+1 Best Regards, Shannon Williams +1 (650) 521-6902 shannon@... On Oct 3, 2018, at 11:54 AM, Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others. But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt

This has useful context for how talks are selected: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/05/29/get-your-kubecon-talk-accepted/ At a high level, the Intro/Deep Dive tracks are separate from the CFP tracks,

If we talk about vendor limits should we exclude SIG specific and project specific sessions? That is the intros and deep dives. That gives some orgs high numbers (like 18 of the vendor who has 41). Do

Even a max of 3-5 from one vendor would be a significant difference from the 68 from one company, 41 from another.... ---- Nick On 10/3/2018 2:54 PM, Anthony Skipper

I would agree with double blind. But a max of 1 talk per vendor might also go a long way.

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing. My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:

thanks Michael, good write up. I really like the overall thinking here. We are not raising the bar for adoption, but we are asking for clarity of thought and planning for early projects. That will

To add a bit of color on the Falco Sandbox proposal and presentation. I started with the proposal document first because I felt that the problem we were trying to solve may not necessarily be well